There is no strict evidence why Chicago rejected Hayek.

It is even less supported that Knight played a role in rejecting Hayek.

As far as I know there are several letters between Hayek and Knight, full
of reciprocal respect. I also consider Frank Knight not the kind of
scholar who could equal scientific dissent and personal hostility. Even if
Knight had a strong opinion of Hayek's capital theory as a true mess, I am
confident that he would not act to reject Hayek from the Department. But
there a no strong evidences, as far as I know.

On the contrary it is evident both that Knight had a negative opinion on
Friedman and that Hayek and Knight cooperated within Nef's Committee on
Social Thought.


Sergio noto
-- 
Sergio Noto

Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
Università degli Studi
Via Artigliere, 8
37129 VERONA ITALIA

Tel. +39 045 8028008
Fax +39 045  8028527
skype: lelefanteita

This email is sent in good faith but it is neither binding on the
Department nor to be understood as creating any obligation on its part
except where provided for in a written agreement. This e-mail is
confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please inform the sender
by reply e-mail and delete it from your system. Please also note that the
unauthorized disclosure or use of the message or any attachments could be
an offence. Thank you for your cooperation






Il giorno 09/05/11 16.01, "mason gaffney" <[log in to unmask]> ha
scritto:

>One reason, perhaps the major reason, why Chicago rejected Hayek is
>Knight and Stigler's sustained crusade against the concept of a "period
>of production". Eight of Knight's many essays on this are cited in Hayek,
>1936, "The Mythology of Capital", QJE L:199-228. To hit the same topic 8
>times in 6 years, 1931-36, indicates it was a high priority with Knight.
>See also Stigler's laudatory essay on Knight in The New Palgrave.
>
>Mason Gaffney
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Robert Leeson
>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:17 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Diamond on Emmett, ed., _The Elgar Companion
>to the Chicago School of Economics _
>
>With respect to the reason why the Economics Department at the University
>of Chicago refused to accept Hayek: Milton Friedman told Bruce Caldwell
>(2000) ³My understanding is that this was because, at that stage, he
>really wasn¹t doing any economics.² (There may also have been some
>resistance to outside pressure). It appears that the location doubts
>(which side of the Popperian demarcation line?) post-date Hayek's fifth
>floor location.  
>
>Friedman (in print, at least) concluded that the Austrian business cycle
>model was dangerous "nonsense" in 1964, after Hayek left Chicago
>(Monetary Studies of the National Bureau, The National Bureau Enters Its
>45th Year, 44th Annual Report, 7-25; Reprinted in Friedman, 1969, The
>Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays, Chicago: Aldine).
>
>In an interview with David Levy, Arnold Harberger (1999) observed ³a
>great difference in focus between Hayek (the Austrians) and Chicago as a
>whole. I really respect and revere those guys. I am not one of them, but
>I think I once said that if somebody wants to approach economics as a
>religion, the Austrian approach is about as good as you can get.²
>
>Friedman also reflected on the ³so-called Austrians, or von Misesians Š
>Because their philosophy which admits no role whatsoever for empirical
>evidence‹it¹s entirely introspective‹leads to an attitude of human
>intolerance. I think anybody who holds that methodological view either is
>to begin with, or ultimately becomes, an intolerant human being. And the
>reason is very simple. If you and I disagree about a proposition, the
>question is how do we resolve our difference? If we adopt a Misesian
>methodological point of view, the only way we can resolve our difference
>is by arguing with one another. I know it from what¹s inside me, you know
>it from what¹s inside you, and so you have to persuade me that I¹m wrong,
>or I have to persuade you that I¹m right. There is no other appeal. And
>so ultimately we have to get to fighting Š that¹s why I think that their
>praxeological philosophy leads to intolerance. You¹ll notice that Mises
>himself was a highly intolerant person. Ayn Rand was a highly intolerant
>person. As he¹s become older, Popper has become an intolerant person."
>
>Friedman believed that Chicago semi-rescued Hayek from intolerance:
>"Hayek is a very interesting case, because I think Chicago in particular
>had a sufficient influence on him so as to move him away and he is not
>nearly as intolerant as the other von Misesians. Same thing was true of
>Fritz Machlup, who was another disciple of von Mises, but neither of them
>were anything like as intolerant as von Mises himself. But this crew of
>people down at the Mises Institute [at Auburn University] Š They¹re just
>as intolerant a bunch as you can find. A coin has two sides. Von Mises¹
>greatness as an economist, his extraordinary influence on a wide range of
>followers, the hero-worship he attracted ‹ all these derived from his
>inflexible honesty, with the ³inflexible² element as important as the
>³honesty² element. But the other side of that coin was intransigence,
>even dogmatism, that bordered on intolerance for anyone who did not
>wholly agree with him."
>
>There is also the related issue of the association between the mental
>illness which afflicted that generation of Austrians and their
>intolerance (and in some instances hysteria). Economists are not trained
>to express a professional judgement on such matters. But it was a tragedy
>that Mises and Henry Simons (a fellow libertarian) were not apparently
>adequately diagnosed.  Hayek, of course, blamed his own lengthy illness
>on medical misdiagnosis.
>
>Does the self-appointed role of Defenders of Civilisation legitimise the
>argumentum ad hominem fallacy that some Austrians embrace (and which
>should be enough to exclude them from scientific discourse)?  Does it
>also legitimise the expression of anger and intolerance which - according
>to Margrit Mises (1984, 36) - had nothing to do Defending Civilisation
>but was instead caused by mental illness?
>    
>Robert Leeson 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Horwitz" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Sunday, 8 May, 2011 5:53:12 AM
>Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Diamond on Emmett, ed., _The Elgar Companion
>to the Chicago School of Economics _
>
>
>
>
>To add to Robert¹s point:  Hayek¹s appointment at Chicago was to the
>Committee on Social Thought precisely because the Economics department
>didn¹t wish to hire him, presumably because he was seen as insufficiently
>³scientific² for them.  At least that¹s the story.  Whatever the reason,
>it certainly suggests, aside from the very important differences between
>Hayek¹s approach and that of the Chicago School that can be gleaned from
>even a cursory look at Hayek¹s work, the Chicagoans apparently didn¹t
>consider him one of them.
>
>  
>
>Steve Horwitz 
>
>  
>
>
>
>From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Robert Nadeau
>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:21 PM
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Diamond on Emmett, ed., _The Elgar Companion
>to the Chicago School of Economics _
>
>  
>
>One should not assume, as Prof. Diamond does, that F.A. Hayek was ever a
>formal member of the Chicago School of Economics.
>
>Robert Nadeau 
>
>
>Le 11-05-06 22:38, « Robert Leeson » < [log in to unmask] > a écrit :
>
>The words "more complete, measured, and rigorously developed synthesis"
>should not be applied to Overtveldt's error-ridden hagiography.
>
>Robert Leeson 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bradley R. Turner" < [log in to unmask] >
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Saturday, 7 May, 2011 8:35:18 AM
>Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Diamond on Emmett, ed., _The Elgar Companion
>to the Chicago School of Economics _
>
>For a more complete, measured, and rigorously developed synthesis, see
>The Chicago School: How the University of Chicago Assembled the Thinkers
>who Revolutionized Economics and Business (2007), by Johan Van
>Overtveldt. 
>
>
>Friedman, on the cover, describes it as "Thorough and extraordinarily
>well informed." 
>
>
>
>On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Humberto Barreto < [log in to unmask] >
>wrote: 
>
>
>------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW ------
>Title: The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics
>
>Published by EH.NET (May 2011)
>
>Ross B. Emmett, editor, /The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of
>Economics/. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010. xi + 350 pp. $200
>(hardcover), ISBN: 978-1-84064-874-4
>
>Reviewed for EH.Net by Arthur M. Diamond, Jr., Department of Economics,
>University of Nebraska at Omaha.
>
>The Chicago School of economics has been described in a variety of ways.
>In 
>the current volume, a useful description is given in the essay of Bruce
>Kaufman who emphasizes ³... a deep commitment to rigorous scholarship and
>open academic debate, an uncompromising belief in the usefulness and
>insight 
>of neoclassical price theory, and a normative position that favors and
>promotes economic liberalism and free markets²  (p. 133).
>
>The volume has been edited by Ross Emmett, a Michigan State historian of
>economic thought whose previous research has focused on early Chicago
>economist Frank Knight.  About two-thirds of the volume consists of
>fifteen 
>³Essays on the Chicago School² in Part 1.  The remaining third of the
>volume, in Part 2, consists of nineteen brief profiles of ³Some Chicago
>Economists.² 
>
>The only essay that attempts any kind of broad overview of the volume is
>Emmett¹s four-page introduction.  His essay briefly establishes the
>historical context of the Chicago School and points us toward some of the
>earlier literature in the history of economic thought that discusses the
>Chicago School.  But it does not attempt to summarize the diverse
>messages 
>of the essays of the volume, let alone try to synthesize these messages
>into 
>any overarching conclusions.
>
>Synthesis would have been difficult, if not impossible, because of the
>apparent absence of any consistent criteria for selection of the
>contents. 
>This volume appears to be opportunistic in the sense that the
>contributors 
>often were culled from those who attended conferences with the editor on
>the 
>Chicago School, and the editor has left the contributors considerable
>leeway 
>in the length, content and style of what they have contributed.  Emmett
>openly admits (p. 3) that some important topics have been left out of the
>³Essays² section of the volume.  But he does not identify the most
>glaring omission:  the contributions of George Stigler and his
>colleagues, 
>such as Brozen, Demsetz and Peltzman, to industrial organization and the
>economics of regulation.
>
>Most of the essays adopt a neutral, expository stance, reporting the main
>research contributions of various Chicago scholars on various topics.
>Some 
>of these essays are written by scholars with some connection to the
>Chicago 
>School, and some simply by scholars with an interest in the history of
>economic thought.  Among the expository essays, economic historians will
>especially appreciate David Mitch¹s chronicle of Chicago¹s contributions
>to economic history, with some discussion of Earl Hamilton, and special
>attention to Fogel and McCloskey; and Hugh Rockoff¹s extensive account of
>the genesis and findings of Friedman and Schwartz¹s tour de force in /A
>Monetary History of the United States/.
>
>Some of the other expository essays are fairly detailed accounts of
>aspects 
>of the Chicago School, e.g., Daniel Hammond¹s thorough account of
>Friedman 
>and Stigler¹s development of Chicago price theory; and Daniel Benjamin¹s
>account of the three most important papers by Armen Alchian. Others paint
>with a broader brush, but provide useful overviews of their topics, e.g.,
>Steven Medema¹s account of the development of Chicago law and economics;
>H. 
>Spencer Banzhaf¹s account of the development of Chicago welfare
>economics; 
>and Gordon Brady¹s account of the Chicago School ³roots² of the
>Virginia School that was James Buchanan¹s early intellectual home.
>
>Parts of Eric Schliesser¹s essay are less expository and more tendentious
>-- implying that Milton Friedman was indirectly responsible for the worst
>that Pinochet did in Chile.  When Schliesser¹s essay was earlier
>presented 
>to the American Economic Association, Deirdre McCloskey powerfully and
>persuasively defended Friedman.  Part of McCloskey¹s defense was her
>report of a Chicago economics faculty meeting she attended, where
>Friedman 
>had successfully argued for turning down funding that had been offered to
>the 
>department from a repressive regime.  But in this volume, Schliesser¹s
>critique of Chicago is left unanswered.  The volume would have been
>better 
>if it had included both sides.
>
>Nineteen economists are included in the profiles of the ³Some Chicago
>Economists² part of the volume.  The basis for selecting the nineteen is
>not obvious.  If we limit ourselves to economists who fit Kaufman¹s
>description of the Chicago School, then it is hard to understand the
>absence 
>of Nobel-Prize-winning Chicago economists Milton Friedman (yes, /Milton
>Friedman/ is absent), Robert Lucas, James Heckman, James Buchanan, Robert
>Mundell, Merton Miller and Robert Fogel.  And if we adopt a broader
>concept 
>of the Chicago School, as Emmett seems to do when he includes Paul
>Douglas 
>among his nineteen, then it is also hard to understand the absence of
>Thorstein Veblen (an early editor of Chicago¹s /Journal of Political
>Economy/), and F.A. Hayek.
>
>The profiles that are included often have useful information.  But much
>of 
>importance is omitted, sometimes due to the brevity of the profiles, and
>sometimes due to the agendas of the profile authors. The four pages on
>George 
>Stigler, for instance, focus primarily on his biography, who he
>associated 
>with, and a selection of his political views; but give scant attention to
>his 
>wit, his erudition, and his contributions to research, especially in the
>area 
>of the history of economic thought.  And to make matters worse, the
>bibliography to the profile neglects to reference key works that do focus
>mainly on Stigler¹s research.  (The Wikipedia entry on Stigler does a
>better job.) 
>
>But on the other hand, it was good to see Evelyn Forget¹s profile of
>Margaret Reid included in ³Some Chicago Economists.²  When I was a
>graduate student at Chicago, Reid had been long retired, but she still
>regularly attended Becker¹s workshop, and still pursued her research.  In
>those days, graduate students would spend long hours at the computer
>center 
>with their decks of IBM punch cards, to wait their turn to run their
>regressions on the mainframe.  And it did not entirely escape our
>attention 
>that Margaret Reid was there too, with her deck of cards, waiting her
>turn. 
>Her presence and her persistence taught us something about the values of
>the 
>Chicago School --something that Klamer and Colander would later reconfirm
>in 
>their interviews with graduate students in /The Making of an Economist/.
>At 
>Chicago, economic research was not just some puzzle-solving game by which
>you 
>earned your living; not something you retired from; economics was a
>calling 
>that mattered. 
>
>References: 
>
>Friedman, Milton, and Anna Jacobson Schwartz. / A Monetary History of the
>United States, 1867-1960/, NBER Studies in Business Cycles.  Princeton:
>Princeton University Press, 1963.
>
>Klamer, Arjo, and David Colander. / The Making of an Economist/.
>Boulder, 
>CO: Westview Press, 1990.
>
>Arthur M. Diamond Jr. received three graduate degrees from the University
>of 
>Chicago, and was a Post-Doctoral Fellow in economics at the University.
>He 
>has recently published several papers related to Schumpeter¹s process of
>creative destruction and is at work on a book entitled /Openness to
>Creative 
>Destruction/. [log in to unmask] .
>
>Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
>copied 
>for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author
>and 
>the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator
>( [log in to unmask] ). Published by EH.Net (May 2011). All EH.Net
>reviews 
>are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview .
>
>Geographic Location: North America
>Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
>Time: 20th Century: Pre WWII, 20th Century: WWII and post-WWII